Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-01-21
At THE UNITED STATES sUrEENE CoCEr DID
DECIDE.

DECIDE
But leg us analize AMI critically consider
what the Supreme Court of the niied STATES
meant by the language. "if a state officer re-
fuses to issue a license 20 "a person who ha7
rendered the dmO0Ht fcq"'red ny td". by It's
terms this sentence means, necessarily elthtI
liat the amount ~ rendered was feHdered IN
,,rncy. or else in the light Of the contract, was
fenaer,l an moHeS or in deHHiHe taX-fecclVaOle
coupons. and the amount 80 tendefed was re-
fused, and the license denied by an ohcer a,llnR
iu obedience toan unconstitutional salul" lheh
The person 81 rendering the amount 80 refused
need not take legal steps 10 compel the issuance
If The license before doing business But not
80 if any OF these elements are Wanting-lhHt
H. if the officer, not acting IN obedience 10
state statute shall trufUty refuse 10 receive the
amount 50 tendcred. and issue such license; or
if the amount Dee not rendered IN money, or IN
pentine tHx-rcccyable coupons, but only III pa
per purpOrtmg 10 De such coupons as 10 Tue
gcuuiucness of which the officer entertains rea-
..uabIe doubts. impressed upon him by the
plain terms employed by the Legislature In the
uroamble ard in the body Of the acts referred
H. and the officer makes such rclusal III oDe-
.JieIce 20 a constitutional statute OF the Sta'",
mon in such case the Supreme Court Of the
uited States did not say. or intend 10 say IN
Eoyall's case, that the person ichdeIliE heeu
not take legal steps 10 compel the lS7hal't
., license &ffDrc doiisO business. The language
If thc Court is not fairly susceptible OF any such
construction "a is cOntended iori that the
highest judicial tribunal In the lana cOuld
never. by the language employed nave IN
tended 10 make a rowing peddler OF goods 10y
sample the aibiter Of the Constitution and laws
Of This state IL is true the Court in mat case
ala. ina effect. say that one who tenders coupons
in Iayment Of such taxes may, II thcy are re-
f1eed prosecute his business without license
and cannot be punished for so doing. But II
would be altogether unJustihable to impute TO
that Court an intention 10 say that one who ten
deis coupons, though they he coupons thht may
be spurious, or at least OF uououul
taken ~ payment until they shall nave
been verified IN accordance with the law OF lhc
state, need not take legal steps TO compel the
issuance of such license before dong business
The alterations Of the conditions upon whlch
me remarks Of tire Court I'm that case was based
makes all the difference In the world, ana az
ference upon which, as pivotal point, the de-
csiOn uf the question arising here must TURN
The question Cf spurious bonds and coupons II
one OF TOO grave import TO this Commonwealth
io bo lightly brushed aside, and should not be
treated with judicial increduliy.
SPURIOUS BONDS
No fact. certainly none connected with the
history ot The Virginia stale debt, Is better IS.
tahsNed than that there are spurious bonds oi
The state out some Of which nave been pre-
sentcd and claimed "a valid and thelr lnNahdl-
fv jNcoptCstibly established. IL ~ ldle 10 az
tenut 70 whistle down the wind the exist
epce of such spurious bonds and the absolute
necessity Of protection against them. Nor Is IL
I'm Eeeping with the dignity Of the judicial sta
ti,n an with common fairness, 10 attribute "
ne state Other and less honorable motives thah
ttcee declared by her Legislature. In the pre-
s,ulje 10 the at of January II, 1882 the fact OF
fhe existence q such spurious bonds ~ sat
forth. and also the fact Of the passage Of the
net ~ a necessary means OF protection 70 DOth
me state and her creditors.
'lb,n. aside from al other evidences OF the
same facts the Legislature Of the Sta5e having
hrs found the facts this Court VIII h0ld the as
one not 10 be questioned. In view of
t,.r,e facts. and in view of the great importance
of The subject 10 the state, We repeat thai the
Su,remc Court Of the United states did not
sov and could not have Intended 70 say, IN
K0yall g. Virginia that which, as applhaole "
fhe case under consideration, wolii DC tahts
mount to saving that person desiring % CON
duct the business Of sample merchant III
fhls STATE may, upoE the bare tender OF papers
,.urp.tting 10 be taX-rcceiyable coupons cut
frcrn londs of this State, without more, ana
though the papers thus rendered may po spu,
rioue or the officer 20 whom ihoy are tehuetsu
may honestly doubt their geHuihensss' .aAe lno
law in his own hands and proceed 10 90 busl-
nsss Without first taxing the loyal steps heces-
sory 10 compel the issuance OF the license re-
o,fired by law it Is important 10 remeih oer 10
thIs connection that while the bonds OF inc
state are signed 10y the state treasurer lhe
Signature 10 coupons attached IS engraved
aud may readily be eounerIsi'eS ~
snt,ect is forcibly put by Lacy, D., In
CeTnvsll rs Commonwealth, recently de.
cl5cd ly this court but not yet reported. II
,nen HE Treasurer In this case ected IN ODE
dienee m n state statute which Is not unconsti-
tw,ionsl. II follows that the applicant whose
tender was refused cannot proceed " 90 gtse
neee Without first obtaining hcehse. ana VIZ
same Conclusion results II the applicant MAKES
~ ~, er aniy in uapers Of doubtful genuine
~ ,a ~ frsasurer oulg refuses ~ aeeeps